Opinion
Index No. CV-003289-19/RI
03-31-2022
Victoria Orozco, Plaintiff, v. Alan Stromfeld and STEVE RUBEL, AS ESCROWEE, Defendants.
Plaintiff's Counsel Richard A. Rosenzweig, Esq. Defendant: No Appearance
Unpublished Opinion
Plaintiff's Counsel Richard A. Rosenzweig, Esq.
Defendant: No Appearance
Brendan T. Lantry, J.
Plaintiff Victoria Orozco ("Plaintiff") commenced this action against Alan Stromfeld ("Stromfeld") and Steve Rubel, As Escrowee ("Rubel") (collectively the "Defendants") on June 3, 2019. Based upon Defendants' failure to appear, this Court found Defendants to be in default and held an inquest on February 15, 2022.
Plaintiff represents that she purchased the property known as 16 Doe Place, Staten Island, NY (the "Premises") from Defendant Stromfeld in 2018 pursuant to a Contract of Sale dated April 12, 2018 ("Contract of Sale"). According to the Plaintiff, a post-closing escrow agreement was executed pursuant to which $5,000.00 was held in escrow by Defendant Rubel, who is an attorney, toward a water bill as of the closing date ("Escrow Agreement"). Specifically, the Escrow Agreement states, in relevant part:
Escrow herein is strictly limited to payment of the outstanding water up to the date of closing and to secure and gaurontee (sic) the proper installation, registration, and sealing of the new water meter, and for the following repairs: (1) complete the sheetrock behind the water meter and (2) repair of the right side tub faucet in the main bath.
Plaintiff further represents that after the closing, she received a final water bill of $13,422.50. Plaintiff alleges that her counsel subsequently sent demands to Defendant Rubel in which counsel requested that Rubel release the $5,000.00 that he held in escrow pursuant to the Escrow Agreement.
During the inquest, Plaintiff testified that since the funds were not released from escrow, she paid $13,422.50 out of her own funds to resolve the water bill. Plaintiff further testified regarding repairs at the Premises that related to the Escrow Agreement. Plaintiff stated that she paid $50.00 to have someone cover a hole in the wall, but that she could not afford the full amount that would be needed to properly repair the damage. Plaintiff presented two estimates for repairs during the inquest, one of which was for $2,500.00 under the heading of "bathroom repair." Plaintiff testified that the scope of this estimate was greater than the repairs related to the Escrow Agreement and that she was orally told by the construction company that it would take $1,700.00 out of the $2,500.00 estimated costs to repair the issues covered by the Escrow Agreement. Plaintiff was unable to provide any documentation regarding the $1,700.00 and failed to bring forth any witnesses regarding such damages. Due to Plaintiff's failure to produce a receipt for the repairs done on the second floor, Plaintiff's counsel requested that the Court rely on the credibility of the Plaintiff regarding such damages.
Discussion
Here, the Court finds that based upon the credible testimony of the Plaintiff and the evidence she submitted, Plaintiff made a prima facie case as to liability and damages against Defendant Stromfeld. However, this Court also finds that it does not have jurisdiction to order Defendant Rubel to release the $5,000.00 held in escrow.
For example, in A.B. Med. Services, PLLC v. Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp., the Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department held that the Civil Court lacked authority to direct a provider to place the amount of a judgment in escrow pending the determination of motions in the case. Specifically, the Appellate Term held that
As a general rule, "[e]xcept for proceedings for the enforcement of housing standards (CCA 110 [a] [4]; 203 [ o ]) and applications for certain provisional remedies (CCA 209 [b]), the New York City Civil Court may not grant injunctive relief" (Topaz Realty Corp. v Morales, 9 Misc.3d 27, 28 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2005] [internal quotation marks omitted]; see also Tobin v Beaaro, Inc., 31 Misc.3d 127 [A], 2011 NY Slip Op 50446[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2011]; Green v Lakeside Manor Home for Adults, Inc., 30 Misc.3d 16 [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d, 11th & 13th Jud Dists 2010]; Jiskra v Canesper, 21 Misc.3d 129 [A], 2008 NY Slip Op 51968[U] [App Term, 2d Dept, 2d & 11th Jud Dists 2008]; cf. 952 Assoc., LLC v Palmer, 52 A.D.3d 236 [2008]). (A.B. Med. Services, PLLC v Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp., 41 Misc.3d 32, 35 [App Term 2013]).
In Topaz Realty Corp. v. Morales, the Supreme Court, Appellate Term reversed the order of the Civil Court in which the court granted an occupant's motion seeking, in effect, to direct the landlord's attorney to release $7,600 being held in escrow to the occupant pursuant to a stipulation of settlement under which the landlord put the funds in escrow. (See Topaz Realty Corp. v. Morales, 9 Misc.3d 27, 28-29 [App Term 2005]). Citing the same statutes discussed by the Court in A.B. Med. Services, PLLC v. Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corp, the Court held "inasmuch as the order directing landlord's attorney to release the funds being held in escrow was equitable and injunctive in nature and not within the limited equitable and injunctive powers of the Civil Court the order was not within the jurisdiction of the court to make." (Topaz Realty Corp. v. Morales, 9 Misc.3d 27, 28-29 [App Term 2005] (internal citations omitted). See also Jiskra v. Canesper, 21 Misc.3d 129 (A) [App Term 2008]; Yaakov v Kupershalayak, 17 Misc.3d 129 (A) [App Term 2007]). The Court found that the occupant "is therefore limited to seeking to enforce the stipulation in the Supreme Court, which has equitable jurisdiction, or instituting an action in Civil Court or Supreme Court seeking money damages for breach of the stipulation." (Topaz Realty Corp. v Morales, 9 Misc.3d 27, 29 [App Term 2005]).
In the case of World Realty Corp v. Consumer Sales, Inc., the Supreme Court, Appellate Term, Second Department, examined whether a district court in Suffolk County erred in declaring that a landlord was entitled to a return of its $6,800 check that was held by its attorney in escrow. The Court noted that pursuant to the New York State Constitution, the jurisdiction of the district court could not be greater than that of the New York City Civil Court. Citing the same statutes discussed by the Court in A.B. Med. Services, PLLC v. Motor Veh. Acc. Indem. Corpo, the Court found that "inasmuch as an order directing landlord's attorney to release the funds being held in escrow would have been equitable and injunctive in nature and not within the limited equitable and injunctive powers of the Civil Court the order would not have been within the jurisdiction of the District Court to make." World Realty Corp. v Consumer Sales, Inc., 9 Misc.3d 136 (A) [App Term 2005]. See also Aldrich Mgt. Co., LLC v Hanson, 56 Misc.3d 1, 3 [App Term 2017]. The Appellate Division, Second Department held that the tenant "is limited to seeking to enforce the stipulation in a court that has equitable jurisdiction or seeking money damages for breach of stipulation."
Based upon such precedent, it is clear that this Court lacks jurisdiction to grant the equitable and injunctive relief that Plaintiff is seeking and order Defendant Rubel to release the $5,000.00 in escrow. In order to obtain the equitable relief that she seeks, Plaintiff "is therefore limited to seeking to enforce the stipulation in the Supreme Court, which has equitable jurisdiction, or instituting an action in Civil Court or Supreme Court seeking money damages for breach of the stipulation." Topaz Realty Corp. v Morales, 9 Misc.3d 27, 29 [App Term 2005]. Therefore, the portion of Plaintiff's application for judgment made against Defendant Rubel is hereby denied.
Regarding Plaintiff's allegations as against Defendant Stromfeld, the Court finds that Plaintiff proved her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law against him for $8,422.50 for the water bill. This amount represents the cost of the water bill that Plaintiff paid, $13,422.50, minus the $5,000.00 that is currently being held in escrow.
The Court further finds that Plaintiff failed to show her prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law with respect to the repair costs for the Premises. While Plaintiff testified that the contract orally told her that it would take $1,700.00 out of the $2,500.00 quoted in the estimate to make the repairs that were covered by the Escrow Agreement, Plaintiff failed to provide any documentation regarding this amount. Plaintiff also failed to bring forth any witnesses regarding such damages. Plaintiff also failed to proffer any evidence showing that she actually paid $353.84 to repair damages on the second floor of the house, such as a check or paid receipt.
Notwithstanding the credible testimony given by the Plaintiff, the Court finds that Plaintiff failed to submit the documentation in admissible form that would establish her prima facie case as to liability and damages against Defendant Stromfeld for the repairs in the amount of $2,053.84.
Accordingly, it is hereby
ORDERED that Plaintiff's claims against Defendant Rubel are dismissed without prejudice; it is further
ORDERED that judgment is granted against Defendant Stromfeld in the amount of $8,422.50; it is further
ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter the judgment; and it is
ORDERED that any and all other requests for relief are denied.
The foregoing constitutes the Decision and Order of the Court.